Labour says we should have 35,000 fewer immigrants a year

Patrick Gower: Good morning David Cunliffe and you heard the Finance Minister Bill English there say that the Government is happy with immigration settings. That is despite some of the highest figures ever – people flooding into Auckland and no-one leaving. What are Labour’s thoughts on New Zealand’s current immigration settings?

David Cunliffe: Well I thought the minister missed the main point which is the responsibility of any government is the total flows and New Zealand is well served when we get enough new migrants to fill our skill gaps but not so many that it overwhelms our housing market or the ability of our schools and our hospitals to cope. And we always used to try to manage to a zone of say between about 5000 and 15,000 net positive. They’re looking at 41, 42,000, that is just too much and it will overheat the property market even further.

So what would Labour do? Too much, you’ve said immigration settings are too high, what would Labour do?

We would manage net migration flows as far as possible to a steady, positive, predictable level that is sufficient for our housing market and our schools and our hospitals to cope with.

How would you do that because you want to come down from about 40,000 to about 15 [thousand]?

Yeah, well the easiest way to do it is to look at the numbers that are able to come in under different categories and just to manage the points system so you take the very best and the ones that are most suitable for the skill gaps and then you turn it back up again as either the homecoming Kiwi flow reduces or the economy starts to cool and you just have to manage it a bit counter-cyclically. Let me say also Labour has always been committed to an open and multi-cultural society and we welcome the contribution that our migrant communities make.

Labour have joined Winston in blaming economic problems on migrants. Now that isn’t to say that one shouldn’t debate what the correct level of migration should be, but claiming that you can reduce net migration by 35,000 through the points system is very deceptive.

Here’s the long-term arrivals by visa types since 2008:

So migrants coming in a residence visa (the points system) are well down on previous years. They are 16% below the year to March 2008. You could scrap all residential visas and you’ll only reduce net migration by 13,000 or so.

Student visas earn us bucketloads of money. They don’t give residency. They allow international students to study here, boosting the economy and providing a major funding source to schools and tertiary institutions. Is Labour saying it will cap student visas?

Work visas are up significantly. But these are also temporary, and are used to fill areas with a skills shortage – such as construction in Christchurch. You generally need a job offer.

So the number of permanent migrants to NZ gaining residence is lower than it was six years ago.

So why is net migration up? Well it is made up of four components. They are:

People leaving NZ

Kiwis returning home

Australians moving here

Other nationalities moving here

The first three categories can not be controlled by the Government. It is in fact a good thing fewer people are leaving NZ. Up until a year ago Labour was complaining too many are leaving.

Likewise it is a good thing many Kiwis are returning home. Even if we wanted to, we can’t stop that.

Also a growing number of Australians are moving here. I think this is a good thing also. Again, we can’t stop that – even if we wanted to. Unless Labour wants to abolish CER, and remove the right of Kiwis to move to Australia also.

So what has happened to numbers in these four categories. Here’s the data:

So net migration is 24,000 higher than five years ago. But look at what makes up that 24,000. 15,300 are fewer people leaving. 5,700 are Kiwis returning or Aussies migrating. Only 3,400 are other migrants.

This is why it is the politics of xenophobia. Blaming migrants for the change in net migration is scapegoating. Their impact is minimal. The big change is in departures being down and Kiwis returning.

Sure one can have a sensible discussion on whether we should tighten up migration eligibility, but that is not a significant factor in the change in net migration over the past five years.

Also for those think that the migration is all from China, here’s the 2013/14 long-term arrivals by country of previous residence.

Kea

Auberon

Wouldn’t it be nice if some of the journalists actually did this sort of analysis before doing their stories?

Just as it would be nice if Guyon Espiner had done some analysis on the number of houses built in recent times, before expecting the Prime Minister to have the number on him when he badgered him on Morning Report this morning.

Ross12

All_on_Red

In Australia, non residents can only buy brand new property , not existing second hand houses.In the US investors in rental property cannot use equity in their family home to buy rental property, ie no cross collateralisation. Each house invested in as a rental is stand alone with a cash deposit put in.
These measures may work here to release upward price pressure caused by demand for existing housing stock. It’s certainly better than killing immigration.

EAD

The media has taken a page out of Joseph Gobbles book in that if you repeat a lie a thousand times then eventually people will believe it. If immigration is always and everywhere such a good thing, why do journalists and politicians have to keep telling us it is a good thing then give us statistics saying that immigration is not as high as we perceive (classic case of cognitive dissonance if ever there was one) and calling those who dissent due to legitimate concerns “xenophobes” or “wayyycists”.

My position is that immigration is good if and only if, those immigrating contribute something to society and assimilate fully into the host culture. The reason being is that if a democracy is to work, people while being free to disagree, should share the same values and language in order to be able to participate fully in the democratic process. Mine and many others big fear is that by promoting “multiculturalism” as official state policy, the political class, having imported millions (yes more than a million “Kiwis” were born overseas) of immigrants, will now divide NZ up into ethnic and religious ghettos and then bribe them with “special favours” which we are already starting to witness.

doggone7

Is our economic salvation only to be secured by shipping people in from overseas? Then is there a magic formula to say that 38,000 is more beneficial than having 55,000 because of infrastructural impacts or 25,000 because of economic benefits?

If ‘more is better’ why not simply open the doors, gates and every other portal? The notion occurs that ‘farming immigrants’ is seen as a key generator of economic activity with the fine line of detrimental impacts being lightly danced along.

jp_1983

BeaB

Facts don’t matter. The media are parroting the Labour and Winston First racist propaganda. I am surprised at Labour as they have always promoted diversity but I guess any scurrilous bandwagon will do in these desperate times for the Left.

I’d be more supportive of cutting migrants on the basis of religion than race – I think we should exclude anyone with any Islamist connections or beliefs, for the sake of our women and girls and our legal system.

And I’d love more Europeans – our Asian supermarkets are brilliant but we need some Italian and Spanish food. Sadly we have always brought in mainly Poms, the Dutch and Polynesians, none of them noted for their cuisine!

All_on_Red

And Winston Peters wants to send all immigrants to the provinces for five years before they are allowed in the bigger cities. Is he going to use a pass system and deport anyone caught visiting their family or on a business trip?

Student visas earn us bucketloads of money. They don’t give residency. They allow international students to study here, boosting the economy and providing a major funding source to schools and tertiary institutions.

They also block up the system. Whilst they are expected to have some level of literacy, the vast majority at least initially have difficulty. Time is spent having to explain certain concepts particular to this country, and having to adjust New Zealand specific theories to make them relevant to the student’s nationality. Their written work is terrible due to the language difficulties.

Then there are those simply here because they really aren’t interested in study, but in gaining entrance to this country. These students fail time and time again, seldom complete assignments etc, but because they are paying students, they are allowed to remain.

International post-graduate students compete for the same funding as New Zelanders. HOWEVER almost always are researching topics that have no relevance to the New Zealand environment. As such they are limiting the numbers of New Zealand students/research being undertaking, and the number of NZ post-grads. A simple viewing of the current doctoral students at any NZ university and their dissertations demonstrates this. The MAJOR funding is spent catering to the needs and requirements of those international students, NOT allowing education for more NZ students.

The ‘University’ has become big business rather than a place of knowledge production. Systems have been adjusted to gear for the business of educating international students and NZ students are picking up the crumbs. For those that think it is okay because we are making money – best think again, because in ten years, when we have no NZ academics producing knowledge specific to New Zealand – we may as well become an off-shore island of some other nation.

martinh

John Key said on morning report today that half of immigrants are highly skilled so who are the other half?
Are they the parents or siblings of people here and only have to live here for i think its five years and not even work and we still pay them superannuation?

martinh

Living in Auckland im actually getting a bit over immigration now, the foreigners have brought some diversity but the place is getting overcrowded, its even smell smoggy lately.
Luckly i have a nice beach house to go retire too and sell the family home to people who can bare to live in this growing rats nest

wikiriwhis business

martinh (987 comments) says:
May 19th, 2014 at 9:43 am
John Key said on morning report today that half of immigrants are highly skilled

And yet, many are students? Students are here to gain skills, that they don’t already have.

Some may have skills, but are those skills pertinent to our country? Do they fill the gaps that we have, or do they just put more people competing for the same jobs as New Zealanders? We only need so many acupuncturists, dentists, architects etc.

Just how select is our immigration policy? Or is it judged simply by a bank balance? And if that is the case, what guidelines are in place to ensure that bank balance is two directional, and not just a one way street back to the country of origin?

Ross12

BeaB – ” And I’d love more Europeans – our Asian supermarkets are brilliant but we need some Italian and Spanish food. Sadly we have always brought in mainly Poms, the Dutch and Polynesians, none of them noted for their cuisine!”

You don’t live in Wellington BeaB ? There is a great chain ( 3 shops now I think) of Italian wholesale/retail food imports and I think there is still a Dutch shop in Petone. Not sure on the Spanish food outlets.

mandk

“Britain has admitted immigration and cross culture does not work ”

Actually, immigration from some origins and cultures has worked very well in Britain. The problem the Brits have is that they can’t officially say where the failures have been for fear of appearing racist.

That is presuming we were still all here, fit and healthy and not working our arses off to pay for damage caused by the nuclear power plant that sat in the middle of Christchurch – the city with little danger of experiencing a large destructive earthquake, according some of the ‘ex’ town planners.

Besides, how can we lose what we never had? Lost potential isn’t a loss, its just something not fulfilled.

I agree, but would those qualified/skilled people be taxi drivers in their country of origin, or still practicing their trade ?

I fail to see why a skilled practitioner would chose to come to a country to drive taxis – if their skills were that productive in their own country. Could it be that those ‘skills’ aren’t productive or relevant ones – a bit like being a ‘farrier’ today.

Then there is the issue of how they gained their skill in their own country. Have they used their country’s education system, required free education, used vital resources, denied others the opportunity of gaining an education, simply to jump ship and take the results of those efforts to another country where they aren’t utilised? How ethical is that, considering we complain about our qualified students doing exactly the same – and some of these international students have come from countries where educational opportunities are extremely limited.

Northland Wahine

Judith, I don’t think anyone would come here to drive taxis. I assume they come for a better life for themselves and their family. I also imagine they come here believing they will find employment in the career they trained for. The thing is, many don’t sit on their arses whinging about what isn’t. They do shit jobs that our unskilled labour think is below them because they have a work ethic.

And yes I know there are those immigrants who have entered into skilled employment and I’ll be the first one to admit sheer frustration when dealing with an accent I find difficult to understand. But I admire their determination to make a new country their new home. Just don’t try to turn it into your old home.

BeaB

Judith et al
You are rather blinkered if you can’t see why NZ might be safer, cleaner and a better place for families than many of the countries immigrants come from.

Surely it’s enough that educated and skilled people want to live and work here. We all benefit. Their kids go on to do better than their parents, as ours do, and they all contribute to the prosperity and social fabric of the country.

I’d hate us to become a little fortress. We have enormous potential in space, resources and opportunities but too few people to make the most of them.

Just as we encourage our children go out into the wider world to explore its possibilities, so we should welcome those who want to become part of our community. Most of us have been here for only a few generations. Thank goodness the doors were open for us.

dime

“In the US investors in rental property cannot use equity in their family home to buy rental property, ie no cross collateralisation. Each house invested in as a rental is stand alone with a cash deposit put in.”

Nice idea, but wouldnt you just refinance

eg 800k house, mortgage of 400k. draw down 200k for personal use and slap it on the rental?

Unity

I hit the wrong button so didn’t finish my other post. I was about to say that having lived in the UK for 7 years in the 1990’s I saw first hand the enormous problems created by virtually uncontrolled immigration. Too many people came in who did not fit in with the British way of life and expected things to be changed to accommodate them. In my view, if they don’t fit, then they should go to a country where they do. The same thing is happening here. We should be very careful of the types we let in and in many cases they should only be allowed to come because they have a skill we very much need. Purchasing a number of properties should not be permitted. In many countries we cannot go there and buy property so why should they be allowed to do so here. The speaking of English should be mandatory. I thought it was but it appears not as there a quite a number coming in who can’t speak English.

So, I’m against willy nilly immigration. Too many are a drain on our State and causing huge housing problems, both in price and availability.

holysheet

wikiibusiness said

“But there’s no employment in these regions”

When were you last in the regions?
there are not enough GOOD employees available for the positions available.
Most job applicants are from the great unwashed liabore voting lot and are only applying for jobs to show that they are attempting to get a job to keep their benefit.

wf

I was a little disturbed to hear of two Muslim men fighting over their mosque last week. How long will it be before each side develops into a crowd, and then starts to intrude into society as a whole? These people should be sent back to their countries of origin, we do not need their disruptive influence here.
It should be a clear condition of of their continued residence that they behave themselves.

BeaB: Dutch immigrants brought real coffee to New Zealand in the 50’s. Before then coffee was a concoction of chicory-flavoured something and tea was the preferred drink. The Windmill coffee shop opposite the hospital in Hastings was one of the first – it’s owners went on to become significant business men in Hawke Bay and Wellington – and their small cakes and pastries were delicious.

igm

What a hoot, McCarten, Manning, and “Tojo” are trying to steal Winnie’s ground! They are a real team, making the rainbow room rectum reamers just sit and wait. Wonder who will be the first woman, Alf or Grant, or will they have turns about?

tas

Oh f*** off Cunliffe. NZ is one of the most sparsely populated countries in he world. We can handle more people. If there is a housing shortage, then we should build more houses, not try cutting demand.

Having a bigger Auckland is beneficial for NZ. If we swallow this idea of that we should keep NZ/Auckland small, then NZ will never be more than an agrarian backwater. And just farming does not make you a rich country in this century.

After living in the US for 4 years, I really appreciate the importance of having big cities that can support modern industries and are attractive to live in. Many of the people I see leave NZ do so because they want to live in big cities where things are happening and where there are more opportunities. NZ needs to offer that. Keep the immigrants flowing.

Jack5

On the one hand, we have defence such as this of National’s liberal immigration policies, and on the other hand, much trumpeting that Auckland is perhaps the world’s most multicultural city. Certainly some of the still leafy suburbs of Christchurch, too, have become quite strongly multi-racial.

It’s not the change that is the problem, but the fact that it occurred without any political debate or without having been a serious political issue at general elections. Why didn’t we get the right to discuss or even choose between multiracialism and then existing biracialism (evolving rapidly by intermarriage into a homogeneity, which is the pattern of Japan, Korea, China, Ireland, etc). More important, still, IMHO, why don’t we now get the right to choose between assimilation (US style) and multiculturalism?

Who decides the genetic patterns of NZ? Someone must be behind immigration decisions and policy. Surely bureaucrats and MP’s are not merely dancing to the tune of immigration agents, banks (handling rich migrants’ cash flows), real estate agents, or even perhaps PR firms in the pay of foreigners?

Are leftist multiculturalists in charge of population policy? Have they cowed everyone into silence by totally confusing us about the difference between racial tolerance and multiculturalism?

Multiculturalism is a political agenda, which stems ultimately from neo-Marxists and the more fuckwitted of anthropologists. These anthropologists at base argue all that all cultures are equal, thus equating on one hand the culture of remote, brain-eating cannibals in Papua New Guinea dying of the illness that comes from eating human brains, with, on the other hand, Western culture that has brought MRI technology and sophisticated brain surgery, and also with cultures like that of China, which gave the world printing among many other technologies.

hj

John Key said on morning report today that half of immigrants are highly skilled so who are the other half?
………………………

3.2.2 Addressing specific skill shortages

Even in an economy operating below capacity, addressing specific skills shortages
through immigration can improve productivity in the short run if there are particular
vacancies that cannot be filled by domestic residents and these vacancies act as a
significant absolute constraint on economic activity.

Where insufficient domestic labour is willing to relocate to address location-specific skills
shortages (such as those presently occurring in Christchurch) immigration can also
reduce the need for economy-wide tightening of monetary policy to reduce wage
pressures.

There are alternatives to immigration as a response to skill shortages, but they can take
time. Higher wages and better working conditions can attract more local workers.
Production processes can change in response to changes in the availability and price of
48
labour, changing skill mix and/or increasing capital intensity. Firms can refocus
production towards activities that are cost-effective without the use of immigrant labour.

Immigrants, particularly less skilled temporary migrants, could substitute for upskilling and
49
employment of locals. However, McLeod and Maré (2013a and 2013b) did not find this
effect was significant in New Zealand.

New Zealand has a reasonably flexible labour market, reasonably responsive education
and training arrangements, and an economy with relatively low skill intensity. Causation is
hard to establish, but to date, low unemployment and manageable skill shortages suggest
setting and administering immigration policy in response to labour market demands works
reasonably well.

Only a small proportion of existing migrants address specific skill needs. While it is
difficult to be certain about counterfactuals, key skills shortages could still be addressed
with substantially lower immigration. With lower immigration, labour market flexibility and
possible offsets from reduced emigration would likely play a greater role in addressing
51
skills pressures.

hj

What Diversity Dividend?
by Professor Paul Spoonley

The Royal Commission’s report on Auckland’s governance provided some weighty reading, somewhat reminiscent of the infamous Royal Commission on Social Policy in the late 1980s. But this time round, the action has started.
The ambitions are reasonably clear : to tidy up the city’s governance and to achieve much better economic outcomes. The Royal Commission offered some answers to the question of who might be the beneficiary’s of either ambition reasonably clear. Notions such as ‘cultural well-being’ and ‘priority populations’ appeared in parts of the report. But there are some puzzling omissions and a failure to connect certain dots.
/ /
Diversity is nice but does not appear to be critical to the city’s economic success.

Fantastic piece. Thanks so much.
Vancouver’s experience is probably like Canada’s on the whole. Trudeau brought in multiculturalism by federal directive in the 70s (“Although there are two founding peoples there is no founding culture…” and that mirrored Laurier before him…) Then in 1982, multiculturalism was enshrined in the Charter. Then in the mid-80s a Conservative PM enacted the “Multiculturalism Act”.
Now in Canada’s large cities it’s somewhat amusing to hear people speaking English. Fourth generation Canadians are seen as an amusing relic. Do you eat roasts? Do your parents wear sweaters to dinner and talk about classical music, ha ha ha?
The reality is that in NZ, the hegemony of Anglo Saxon culture refuses to die. The Interfaith dialogue was a fantastic example of that. Also, we never had (much) immigration from Central, Eastern or Southern Europe. We still treat South Africans and Pomps as “one of us”.

hj

tas says:
“Having a bigger Auckland is beneficial for NZ. If we swallow this idea of that we should keep NZ/Auckland small, then NZ will never be more than an agrarian backwater. And just farming does not make you a rich country in this century. ”
………
bullshit to that tas. There is no guarantee that a larger population increases wealth per capita and it sure as hell isn’t good for living space in our cities or towns.

According to Longitudinal Immigration Survey: New Zealand

(LisNZ) – Wave 1 the top reasons given for migrating to NZ are:
Relaxed pace of life or lifestyle
Climate or the clean, green environment
A better future for my children
Employment opportunity
Friendly people
Safety from crime
Join family members
Easy access to outdoor or sporting activities
Educational opportunities
Marry or live with a NZ spouse or partner
Political stability
Economic conditions
To study
Accompany family members
Other
Aspects Migrants liked most about NZ
Climate or natural beauty or clean and green
Friendly people or relaxed pace of life
Can achieve desired lifestyle
Safety from crime and violence
Recreation and leisure activities
Small population
Education system or educational opportunities
Having family here
Political stability and freedom or lack of corruption
Cultural diversity
Job opportunities
Good provision of services
Good housing
Lack of inter-racial, ethnic or religious tensions
Economic conditions
Other
None

hj

BeaB

wf
And the Dutch gave us their bland cheeses and sausages too when we could have had all that delicious Italian and Spanish porky stuff and cheese.
I just wish we had opened our doors a bit wider after the war and we might have had a much more interesting society – and food.
Mind you I remember the coffee bars in Christchurch in the 50’s and 60’s and I am sure the espresso wasn’t Dutch.
I am with you about radical Muslims. I fear their influence on our freedoms.
Already in Hamilton there is talk about women only swimming sessions at public pools and I hate seeing young girls swathed in head scarves on hot days and barred from sports.
And if their own women have to be covered in sacks so as not to inflame uncontrollable Muslim male lusts how safe are our sensibly-clad girls from them?
And our media are totally cowed by Islam.

Jack5

Tas posted at 12.20:

Having a bigger Auckland is beneficial for NZ. If we swallow this idea of that we should keep NZ/Auckland small, then NZ will never be more than an agrarian backwater. And just farming does not make you a rich country in this century.

Auckland’s population as a proportion of the national population is far, far bigger than the proportion of any US city to US population.

And everyone is looking for an alternative export industry to farming. How is it coming from Auckland? Auckland consumes a giant share of NZ imports but contributes a relatively small proportion of exports. When and how is this going to change, Tas?

hj

The Immigration Minister should spend some time investigating the thousands of invalid student visas issued by his department while he is in China pretending to be important, says Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Mr Peters says the Minister is in denial over the thousands of parental reunion applications from China which have been stockpiled at Immigration New Zealand so he could perhaps tackle the student visa charade.

“The Palmerston North office is described within the department itself as the student visa “factory” and it is well known to insiders that thousands of visa applications were rubber stamped because of pressure from the education export sector.

“These people are wandering around New Zealand somewhere doing something well outside their original application purpose and this should never have been allowed to happen.”

Mr Peters says the Government is in total denial over the immigration shambles it helped create through taking short cuts in response to greedy demands.

“The Government is actually the biggest part of the immigration problem so the Minister should stop having a pillow fight with himself in a Beijing hotel and start cleaning up the mess.”

hj

Mind you I remember the coffee bars in Christchurch in the 50′s and 60′s and I am sure the espresso wasn’t Dutch.
…
We had the third highest standard of living in the OECD and I don’t think many people considered that we needed a whole lot more people (but there’s always the exception).

Scott1

hj,

I remember looking at quite an extensive amount of research on economic growth of cities (for a research piece) and hidden in there was that apparently diversity was negatively associated with growth once you factored out other things.

My guess was that it was something to do with dual economies forming, but that is just a guess.

Southern Raider

hj

Pete George (21,991 comments) says:
May 19th, 2014 at 10:37 am

Since when? Britain has been major destination for cross-cultural immigrants for millenia.

The British Dream by David Goodhart

First, Goodhart demolishes what he calls the “immigrationist myth”. This is the proposition, spun by the political elite for the last quarter century, that Britain is a mongrel nation that has always been open to outside arrivals. As he painstakingly demonstrates, this is almost completely untrue: “From 1066 until 1950 immigration was almost non-existent – about 50,000 Huguenots in the 16th and 17th century, about 150,000 Jews in two waves, and perhaps one million or more Irish over 200 years, during which time they were internal migrants within one state.” More immigrants now arrive on British shores in a single year than they did in the entire period from 1066 to 1950, excluding wartime flows and the Irish.

hj

“‘As diversity increases, democracy weakens. Faith in democracy declines when people see they cannot make a difference., and mass immigration, a policy clearly and consistently opposed by most people and yet which no mainstream politician will speak against, has shaken the public’s trust in politics. Since politicians will not listen to people’s concerns, they come to the conclusion that politics is pointless’.”http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/11/a-review-of-the-diversity-illusion-by-ed-west.html

EAD

@ Jack5 12.22pm – good point

The best explanation I have seen is if you live in a nice settled suburb and a movie star moves there. Great – bring some money and attention to the area. But then ten other movie stars move in. Then 100. All of a sudden the area has changed beyond recognition. None of the children of families who have been there for generations can afford a house and you can’t move for motor cavalcades, media advisers and you don’t have anything to do with your new neighbours as for all intents and purposes, they are living a completely different life.

However saintly the newcomers are, there is a limit beyond which tolerance turns to resentment. Many Kiwi people have already passed that point. That’s not “xenophobia”, it’s anger at the way New Zealand is being changed without our consent.

tas

Jack5 (4,337 comments) says:
Auckland’s population as a proportion of the national population is far, far bigger than the proportion of any US city to US population.

Good. Auckland has a third of NZ’s population. But Auckland is still a small city by international standards; even Sydney is 3.3 times larger. People want to live in big cities (not everyone of course) and there’s no reason to stop them doing so.

And everyone is looking for an alternative export industry to farming. How is it coming from Auckland? Auckland consumes a giant share of NZ imports but contributes a relatively small proportion of exports. When and how is this going to change, Tas?

Our biggest export is agricultural products. While it’s good that our agricultural sector is productive, it’s not something to be proud of, because it means our other sectors are underperforming. There isn’t much potential for growth in agriculture. Like it or not, NZ’s economy is underperforming (thankfully the current govt is doing a good job of catching up); our GDP per capita is comparable to a good eastern European country or a southern European one, not a western European or north American one.

If you look at rich countries around the world (excluding places dependent on natural resources), it’s modern industries based in big cities that drives their economy. We need to emulate that. Find me a country that is wealthier than NZ and whose economy is not based on big cities or oil/mining.

BuyLowSellHigh

Interesting read. Perhaps someone can clarify – The list at the end states that for the 2013/14 period, there were 21,146 long-term arrivals from Australia. However, the table says that only 7,254 Australians arrived for the 2014 period. What am I missing here?